Far East Cynic

Old News

It has taken me a little while to get around to this but I did not let want to let it pass by without a comment.

Long time readers here may have noticed that the number of posts about my former employer and lifelong vocation, the United States Navy-has dropped.  It’s not for lack of interest, nor any regrets about my time in the Navy, but simply a feeling-not quite explainable-that it represents a part of my life that is now past. To be savored in my memory to be sure, but since I am not in the middle of it anymore, it is something that I cannot arouse great passion about now. I’ve not really explored the why of this-I just know  the feeling has changed. Perhaps it is just the living proof of the adage, “where you sit, determines what you see”. I’m sitting outside the stadium now-so it is hard to see the action on the field.

Nonetheless, every once in a while something so ridiculous comes along, that it arouses my anger at the stupid people who think they have a right to cast judgment on those of us who have been to sea.  This is one of those events:

That was fast. Sunday, the Virginian-Pilot posted a montage of lewd, “morale-boosting” videos that Capt. Owen P. Honors starred in, directed and broadcast to the crew of the USS Enterprise dating back to 2006-2007 when he was the ship’s executive (number two) officer. Tuesday, the Navy fired Honors, now captain of the ship, citing a “profound lack of good judgment and professionalism.”

Not, take note, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

So, now what? With the Navy, the Washington Post reports, set on a “broader investigation into whether senior Navy officials knew about the 4-year-old videos, and why they failed to take disciplinary action against Honors,” we once again seem to be embarking, rudderless, into the dangerous waters of the hydra-headed purge, gathering, sharpening, steeling, lusting for suspects. But of what crime? Not the one I would charge the unfortunately named Capt. Honors with.

The post-Tailhook Navy fetish, of course, remains sexually oriented — or, more accurate, sexual-orientationally oriented. (In the guise of an aviator persona, Honors lets fly some homosexual putdowns in the video, and later encounters same-sex couples in  the shower.) As one retired vice admiral put it to the Post, “What bothers me is that Capt. Honors’ behavior set a standard that allowed for sexual innuendo.”

Funny. What bothers me is that Capt. Honors’ behavior didn’t set any standard at all.

This should come as little surprise. Perhaps the greatest triumph of [feminism] in the last 25 years has been the junking of military standards regarding the sexes, a set of traditional attitudes that was slow to dismantle itself in the wake of the 1960s sexual revolution. Indeed, the military could be, and was, seen as a bulwark against the social changes wrought by a metastasizing feminism in the civilian world that would go on to kill, among other things,  such concepts as “mixed company” and its prohibitions on “bad language” and other social shields. These had allowed for the existence of now-lost refuges such as reticence and discretion, which, in turn, provided shelter for a kind of privacy and intimacy that is all but unimaginable in our over-exposed world of TMI (too much information)..

Now my first reaction as one of surprise-most “ Big XO’s” that I know of would never have even tried to make a video like this, nor would they have –in my observation-had the time . But at the same time-there is nothing in this video that is really offensive, when it is viewed from the standpoint of the average person who has and / or continues to serve on a Navy warship. Calling a SWO “Fagboy “ was de rigeur during my time, I assure you they had much worse names for us brown shoes. But woe be unto the outsider who calls my friendly neighborhood SWO a “fagboy”. Only we can do that to our pledges. That outsider would have quickly been escorted to the door of the bar-and thrown through it.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the Captain(s) involved curtailed these when it began to make certain powers that be uncomfortable. They are not a reason to curtail the career of a bright young officer who appears to have grasped how relate to a generation reared on video games. There used to be other, more discrete, ways to deal with transgressions that displeased the powers that be. Today, however, everything is solved with a summary execution.

Nor does the columnist above have it right either-the comments are not “anti” or “pro” sexual orientation as much as they are a back handed (and clever) negative commentary on the social engineering that is occurring within the armed services primarily to appease the demands of those who haven’t or won’t serve anyway. Don’t kid yourself, for all the talk about repeal of DADT or serving with gays,  “it doesn’t matter”-trust me there is a sizable group who are not happy about yet another upheaval within the military culture. They will be professional and do their jobs-but it will exact a cost.

The service  today seems to prefer public whippings. I, for the life of me,  don’t understand why. The Navy could have instead treated more gently-for what is essentially a mild,  but localized distraction, while quietly ensuring it would not have happened again. Does short touring or letters of instruction not even happen anymore?  How many carrier CO’s and XO’s are there? 22. The grapevine word would have gotten out.

It’s a telling commentary on the gutlessness of our senior naval leadership that they refused to stand up and back up one of their own and deal with the matter internally. ( Goes back to the “only we can beat our pledges” thing.). Rather the subliminal message they sent loud and clear to the JO’s and to the Chief’s mess is this ( Italics are Phib’s words, not mine):

“We disapproved, counseled our Shipmate, corrective action taken with remediation, and we moved forward.   And then,  at the first sign that it might impact us-we cast him aside like a broken toy. We really did not have any loyalty to him-only to ourselves and our perks. That he had obviously shown us that he had the smarts and the capability to lead and do his job since then-because we rewarded him with two subsequent commands-matters not a whit.”

Smiling they then walk off to their next appointment -thinking all the while that their Sailors didn’t hear that message.

But don’t kid yourself-the JO’s, the Chiefs, and the rest all heard loud and clear: Don’t trust your leadership to care about you.

Remember that when they walk out the door-or do only the minimal effort required to get by. You flags will have no one to blame but yourselves.

  1. Well said.

    CAPT Honors was sandbagged by an inferior who edited and leaked that video to make him look as bad as possible. Someone who had a grudge. But that pales in comparison to the sandbagging he got at the hands of the people who were tasked with supporting him. In theory at least, the Admirals were supposed to take care of a man who by all accounts had his ship and crew ready to deploy. Three times.

    Shameful.